Ex Parte Desai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2014

11565249 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAURABH DESAI, NITEESH KUMAR DUBEY,
YANTIAN TOM LU, RAVI A. SHANKAR, MURALI VADDAGIRI,
DREW THOMAS WALTERS, and XINYA WANG
____________

Appeal 2012-005034
Application 11/565,249
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–21. Claim 7 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method, apparatus, and
computer usable program product for automatic activation of roles. When a
user initiates an action, a set of roles needed for the action is identified. A
set of roles assigned to the user is also identified. From the two sets of roles,
Appeal 2012-005034
Application 11/565,249
2
all roles that are common to both sets are identified in a subset of roles.
Roles in this subset are assigned to the user and are sufficient for the action.
One or more roles from this subset of roles is selected for activation
depending on system policies in effect. Selected roles are automatically
activated without requiring any intervention from the user. See Abstract.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer implemented method for automatically activating
roles for a user, the computer implemented method comprising:

responsive to an action being initiated by the user, identifying
each role needed to perform the action to form a first set of
roles;

responsive to the identifying of each role needed to perform the
action, identifying each role assigned to the user initiating the
action to form a second set of roles;

responsive to the identifying of each role assigned to the user
initiating the action, forming a subset of roles comprising each
role present in both the first set of roles and the second set of
roles; and

responsive to the forming of the subset of roles, activating a role
from the subset of roles by the user assuming the role from the
subset of roles that the user is assigned to, wherein the action
initiated by the user is performed by using the role, wherein the
role is automatically activated without requiring an input from
the user for selecting the role, wherein abilities of the user to
perform actions are determined by the roles assigned to the user
such that authority of the user to perform a particular action at a
particular point in time is based upon what particular role of the
roles is assigned to the user at the particular point in time.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gavrila US 2002/0026592 A1 Feb. 28, 2002
Appeal 2012-005034
Application 11/565,249
3
Sharp US 2002/0111892 A1 Aug. 15, 2002

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–6 and 8–211 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as unpatentable over Gavrila and Sharp. Ans. 5–25.2

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11–16) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2–4) that the Examiner has erred. We have also reviewed the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Rej. 2–23), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 26–41).
We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references
as follows.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s cited combination of Gavrila
and Sharp fails to show or suggest the “synergistic interplay” between the
various elements of the independent claims. App. Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellants urge that the cited references do not show or suggest

1 Claim 3 is objected to as lacking proper dependency. For purposes of
examination the Examiner presumes dependency from claim 2. Appellants
have not objected to the Examiner’s presumption. Appellants have not
argued that claim 3 is patentable independently of the patentability of claim
2, either. Because of this, our adoption of the Examiner’s presumption does
not prejudice Appellants in this appeal.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 1, 2011;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 19, 2011; and the Reply Brief filed
December 21, 2011.
Appeal 2012-005034
Application 11/565,249
4
responsive to an action being initiated by the user, identifying
each role needed to perform the action to form a first set of
roles; responsive to the identifying of each role needed to
perform the action, identifying each role assigned to the user
initiating the action to form a second set of roles
as set forth in claim 1. See Id. Appellants further argue that the creation of
an instance of a user, on a host computer or set of host computers, is not
described in the cited reference as a user initiated action. App. Br. 13.
Consequently, Appellants urge the remaining claim elements cannot be said
to occur “responsive to” a user initiated action, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds that the creation of an instance of a user
comprises an “action initiated by the user” which results in the automatic
selection of a first set of roles required to perform that action, citing
paragraphs 34–35 of Gavrila. Ans. 27. Further, the Examiner finds that
Gavrila teaches the identification of a second set of descendant roles
assigned to the user. The Examiner finds the second set of descendant roles
are those roles which did not have instances on the host computer, citing
paragraph 35, lines 5–7. Id.
We find that an “instance” in Object Oriented programming is merely
an object established within a class. Further, we find no evidence within the
Gavrila reference that the creation of an “instance” of a user is an “action
initiated by the user.” Additionally, the Examiner provides no support for
the assertion that the creation of an instance of a user is an action initiated by
a user. Consequently, based upon the absence of the suggestion of a user
initiated action within the Gavrila reference, we conclude that the
Examiner’s assertions regarding the identifying and activating of roles
needed to perform a user initiated action are not well founded.
Appeal 2012-005034
Application 11/565,249
5
We recognize that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues.
Some of the arguments presented by the additional issues are not persuasive;
nonetheless we were persuaded of error by the issue stated above and as
such we do not reach the additional issues as the issue stated above is
dispositive of the appeal.
Claims 2–6 and 10–13 depend, either directly or indirectly, from
claim 1, and therefore we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–
6 and 10–13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Gavrila and
Sharp, for the reasons we set forth above.
Independent claims 8 and 9 also recite a user initiated action and the
identifying and activating of roles necessary to perform that user initiated
action. For the same reasons we set forth above, i.e. the lack of a suggestion
of a user initiated action, we find the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claims 8, 9, and 14–21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Gavrila and Sharp.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–6 and 8–21 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6 and 8–21 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls